I hadn't thought of the US Constitution in this manner before. Is the US Constitution a shining example of the protection of liberty or a tool for the empowerment of a domineering, oppressive central government?

"Instead, after 224 years, we now have exactly what the original ruling class desired, an all-powerful central government ruling over the lower classes. This is a rule by the few over the many. As Aristotle said: rule by the few is aristocracy in its ideal form and oligarchy in its perverted form. The elite class holds all the cards, while the rest of us now struggle under the thumb of tyranny!

Regards,

Gary D. Barnett

Gary D. Barnett is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Lewistown, Montana."

I hadn't thought of the US Constitution in this manner before. Is the US Constitution a shining example of the protection of liberty or a tool for the empowerment of a domineering, oppressive central government?

"Instead, after 224 years, we now have exactly what the original ruling class desired, an all-powerful central government ruling over the lower classes. This is a rule by the few over the many. As Aristotle said: rule by the few is aristocracy in its ideal form and oligarchy in its perverted form. The elite class holds all the cards, while the rest of us now struggle under the thumb of tyranny!

Click to expand...

The all-powerful central government isn't because of the Constitution. It's because of the federal reserve, imo.

I hadn't thought of the US Constitution in this manner before. Is the US Constitution a shining example of the protection of liberty or a tool for the empowerment of a domineering, oppressive central government?

"Instead, after 224 years, we now have exactly what the original ruling class desired, an all-powerful central government ruling over the lower classes. This is a rule by the few over the many. As Aristotle said: rule by the few is aristocracy in its ideal form and oligarchy in its perverted form. The elite class holds all the cards, while the rest of us now struggle under the thumb of tyranny!

Click to expand...

The all-powerful central government isn't because of the Constitution. It's because of the federal reserve, imo.

Click to expand...

Well, what about this:

"The people did not establish our constitution, nor was it inspired by divine intervention as so many suggest. It would be difficult for me to imagine that God would have a hand in the destruction of our inherent and natural rights. No, this flagrantly flawed document was designed and implemented by a few corrupt men led by Alexander Hamilton. Their agenda was guided not by any desire to achieve liberty for all, but by a grand lust for power and control. Had that not been the case, the Declaration of Independence would have been the guide for any new set of rules, and our original constitution would have been even more scrutinized instead of being replaced."

Haven't you noticed that the all-powerful, ultra-intrusive federal government has come about in violation of the Constitution, not by the power of the Constitution?

Click to expand...

How did people come to be in a position to violate the very laws they purport to uphold, simultaneously using these laws to maintain--and expand--their power?

Click to expand...

Human nature is frequently not very admirable, so of course some people will violate and pervert the law - often while claiming to uphold and protect it - to benefit themselves if they're allowed to.

On the other hand, people will also be lazy and apathetic and allow others to get away with murder - sometimes literally.

So whichever side of the equation you were asking about, the dark side of human nature is your answer. Nevertheless, the Constitution is not responsible for too-powerful government. It doesn't create it OR enable it. If it were actually followed, it would inhibit it.

I hadn't thought of the US Constitution in this manner before. Is the US Constitution a shining example of the protection of liberty or a tool for the empowerment of a domineering, oppressive central government?

"Instead, after 224 years, we now have exactly what the original ruling class desired, an all-powerful central government ruling over the lower classes. This is a rule by the few over the many. As Aristotle said: rule by the few is aristocracy in its ideal form and oligarchy in its perverted form. The elite class holds all the cards, while the rest of us now struggle under the thumb of tyranny!

Click to expand...

The all-powerful central government isn't because of the Constitution. It's because of the federal reserve, imo.

Click to expand...

Well, what about this:

"The people did not establish our constitution, nor was it inspired by divine intervention as so many suggest. It would be difficult for me to imagine that God would have a hand in the destruction of our inherent and natural rights. No, this flagrantly flawed document was designed and implemented by a few corrupt men led by Alexander Hamilton. Their agenda was guided not by any desire to achieve liberty for all, but by a grand lust for power and control. Had that not been the case, the Declaration of Independence would have been the guide for any new set of rules, and our original constitution would have been even more scrutinized instead of being replaced."

I disagree with the author of the first article you posted. The "people" did not establish the constitution, but some of the "people" did. I don't see how it is flawed. There was a lot of blood shed for the independence sought by the early colonists.

The Federal Reserve is the problem here. When the Federal Reserve was created, it took power out of the hands of the people. I don't know how it was done, but I have been reading lately and it makes sense.

"He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation." James A. Garfield

"The people did not establish our constitution, nor was it inspired by divine intervention as so many suggest. It would be difficult for me to imagine that God would have a hand in the destruction of our inherent and natural rights. No, this flagrantly flawed document was designed and implemented by a few corrupt men led by Alexander Hamilton. Their agenda was guided not by any desire to achieve liberty for all, but by a grand lust for power and control. Had that not been the case, the Declaration of Independence would have been the guide for any new set of rules, and our original constitution would have been even more scrutinized instead of being replaced."

Click to expand...

Hence the fallacy of originalism.

And in spite of this the crucible of the rule of law forged the judicial foundation upon which our civil rights stand:

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, Lawrence v Texas (2003)

Men of good faith may disagree on issues of politics and faith, one may even lose the contest; but in the context of the rule of law one need not fear the loss of his liberty.

"The people did not establish our constitution, nor was it inspired by divine intervention as so many suggest. It would be difficult for me to imagine that God would have a hand in the destruction of our inherent and natural rights. No, this flagrantly flawed document was designed and implemented by a few corrupt men led by Alexander Hamilton. Their agenda was guided not by any desire to achieve liberty for all, but by a grand lust for power and control. Had that not been the case, the Declaration of Independence would have been the guide for any new set of rules, and our original constitution would have been even more scrutinized instead of being replaced."

Click to expand...

Hence the fallacy of &#8216;originalism.&#8217;

And in spite of this the crucible of the rule of law forged the judicial foundation upon which our civil rights stand:

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, Lawrence v Texas (2003)

Men of good faith may disagree on issues of politics and faith, one may even lose the contest; but in the context of the rule of law one need not fear the loss of his liberty.

Click to expand...

The rule of law implies impartiality.
If one designs the game for one's own end, and one ends, as it were, why must others be compelled to follow the rules of said game? The names of the game players have changed many times in our history. The game remains the same. We give of ourselves and receive more game time--and war and death--in return.
Where is the protection supposedly provided by the constitution in all this?
Who decides for whom?

"The people did not establish our constitution, nor was it inspired by divine intervention as so many suggest. It would be difficult for me to imagine that God would have a hand in the destruction of our inherent and natural rights. No, this flagrantly flawed document was designed and implemented by a few corrupt men led by Alexander Hamilton. Their agenda was guided not by any desire to achieve liberty for all, but by a grand lust for power and control. Had that not been the case, the Declaration of Independence would have been the guide for any new set of rules, and our original constitution would have been even more scrutinized instead of being replaced."

Click to expand...

Hence the fallacy of originalism.

And in spite of this the crucible of the rule of law forged the judicial foundation upon which our civil rights stand:

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, Lawrence v Texas (2003)

Men of good faith may disagree on issues of politics and faith, one may even lose the contest; but in the context of the rule of law one need not fear the loss of his liberty.

Click to expand...

Hence the idiocy of rejecting originalism.

Id say the same about the Thirteenth Amendment. Bans on slavery and involuntary servitude existed in America from 1787 on, beginning with the Northwest Ordinance and then getting enacted in various state constitutions. As best I can tell, those bans were never generally understood as casting constitutional doubt on mandatory military service  which was the norm even in peacetime, in service in the state militia  or on jury duty. By the time the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted, involuntary servitude had an established legal meaning, and that was a meaning limited to conditions that were more akin to traditional slavery and less to the duties of citizenship such as military service or jury service. Maybe this approach was morally unsound, or even illogical, as some have argued. But when the ban on involuntary servitude was made part of the Constitution, it was not understood as being a ban on all involuntary work.
Indeed, even today the language is ambiguous. Not all service is servitude; not all involuntary service needs to be involuntary servitude. Does the Thirteenth Amendment ban all involuntary work, or only involuntary work that is understood as akin enough to slavery (perhaps in part because of the sense of social degradation that it is seen as involving), especially in light of what has been traditionally allowed in free states?
When we resolve this ambiguity, I dont think we can just declare that involuntary servitude must mean all involuntary work. To be sure, that definition would have the advantage of simplicity, and it would be the more libertarian definition. But that doesnt make it the more authoritative understanding of the constitutional text. Given this ambiguity, then it seems to me that arguments based on the text (as opposed to arguments based on general libertarian theory) need to be attentive to how the text was understood by those whose enactment of the text gave the text legal significance. If you can show that involuntary servitude did indeed include the draft (and perhaps even jury service) as of 1865, that would be a persuasive argument; but simply relying on the assumption that all involuntary labor is involuntary servitude does not, I think, work.
Nor can we just say that the drafters of the Thirteenth Amendment included only one exception to the ban on slavery and involuntary servitude  the exception for criminal punishment  and therefore all other involuntary servitude is banned. The question is what people of the era understood by involuntary servitude in the first place. And given that involuntary servitude was a familiar phrase at the time, it seems likely that they understood involuntary servitude as referring to a particular subset of involuntary service, a subset that by definition excluded the traditionally accepted duties of a citizen, including military service and jury service.

What you are doing is confusing textualism and originalism. Textualism is about what the words say, originalism is about what the text means. Both the left and the right resort to textualism when it suits them. Examples are the right when it argues that the Constitution does not include a right to privacy, the left when it argues that the 2nd Amendment applies only to militias.

Kennedy was right that the framers were not specific, but that was by intent, not neglect or lack of vision. The original intent of the Constitution was to protect the liberty of the individual, and I am an originalist to my core because I believe the individual is paramount when discussing liberty.

Raise any of the founders, including Alexander Hamilton, from the grave and he would agree with that sentiment. He would debate me hotly about the method, because he believed a strong government was the way to guarantee that liberty, but the intent is clear.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!